By Troy Riddell, September 1, 2026
The Ford government has implemented changes to the bail system in Ontario. The system needs reform but the centrepiece of the new policy, bail deposits, are unfair (and likely unconstitutional), will have minimal impact on public safety, and will likely have costly unintended consequences.
Under the new system, if a judge or Justice of the Peace orders an accused and/or their surety (an individual who pledges to supervise the accused) to pay money if the terms of release are violated, that money must be deposited within two days after release rather than being collected following a breach of bail conditions. Other changes include a surety database and changes to make it easier for the government to collect monies owed by accused or sureties.
The government argues that the changes will make Ontario safer from individuals committing offences while on bail, especially by repeat offenders, and it will make it easier for governments to collect money if bail conditions are breached. The smaller administrative changes involving a surety database and collecting funds from those who break the rules are positive.
However, many accused, along with their potential sureties, lack resources. A bail deposit approach will make it harder for some accused to get bail for reasons that are not tied to the grounds on which bail can be legally denied: concerns over appearing in court, public safety, or the repute of the administration of justice. This unfairness will likely result in the law being struck down under the Charter of Rights as a violation of the right “not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause” (section 11(e)). A temporary injunction putting the deposit system on hold has already been granted by a Superior Court judge while the Charter challenge is argued.
Some also argue that the new provincial cash bail policy offends the power of the federal government to set rules around cash bail. For the sake of argument, however, let’s say the law survives the federalism challenge, and either is not struck down under the Charter, or the Ford government uses the Section 33 notwithstanding clause to protect the law. It is unlikely to make Ontario safer and will instead have costly repercussions within the administration of justice.
Although the government’s logic seems reasonable on its face – if there is a deposit that will not be returned if bail conditions are breached an accused will be more likely to come to court and follow those conditions (and a surety will more carefully monitor an accused). In reality, it is unlikely to reduce crime while on bail. Individuals who repeatedly commit crimes are often not making rational calculations; instead, they are acting impulsively, have serious mental health issues, and/or substance abuse issues. To the degree that rational behaviour is at play, often the question is about whether one will get caught. It would be better to invest in helping police solve crimes, particularly given declining police clearance rates. Potential punishment is another part of a rational calculus – forfeiting one’s deposit could act as some deterrent, but a violation of bail conditions or committing new offences while on bail already could have serious consequences, including being placed in jail before trial. Moreover, if the government follows through on the other measures to make it easier to collect money after the fact for bail breaches this could have a (small) deterrent effect without the unfairness associated with requiring a deposit up front.
While it is doubtful that the new rule will have a real deterrent effect, it is much more likely to have unintended consequences that are costly and potentially undermine public safety. Bail proceedings in Ontario and other provinces already feature significant delays. It is likely that many accused will need more time to gather funds and try to find a surety who could pay a deposit. Defence lawyers and Crowns will argue over how large the deposit should be. These delays are costly to the taxpayer. Prior to a final bail decision, individuals stay in a provincial jail and need to be shuttled back and forth for bail hearings or require technology in prison to attend a virtual bail hearing.
Delay, as well as the potential for individuals to be denied bail owing to financial factors, could also potentially undermine public safety. Individuals who are in jail are detached from bonds that promote positive behaviour, such as family, employment, and social services. Increased jail time for some individuals might make recidivism more likely.
Another possible unintended consequence of the government’s policy is that judges and Justices of the Peace may start to not require a cash deposit or make it a very small amount. This would undermine any possible deterrent effect that cash deposits may have.
Interestingly, the Ford government is making this move at the same time that many jurisdictions in the US are moving away from a cash bail system. Research in the US has demonstrated that in states or local jurisdictions where the requirements of cash bail have been scaled back there has not been an increase in offending by those on bail and prison populations have declined.
What should the government do instead? First, continue with investments that increase accountability (including the surety database) and the capacity to monitor risky, repeat offenders who have been granted bail. Second, expand bail bed programs and bail supervision and verification programs for less serious offenders. Third, address bail delays through more courthouse staff (JPs, Crowns) and promoting a courthouse culture change where efficiency is valued and adjournments are frowned upon.
Yes, those recommendations cost money – but it costs a lot of money to house prisoners. It costs money to pay Crowns and judges/Justice of the Peace increased time for delayed bail hearings. It also is expensive to defend a law in court that is likely to be found unconstitutional.
A number of tragic incidents, along with the limited empirical data we have around bail, demonstrate that governments need to continue to address problems with repeat offenders and individuals committing crime while out on bail. Keeping violent individuals off the streets is a worthy goal but making the criteria for bail financial, as opposed to an assessment of the risk to public safety, is backwards.
I have written elsewhere (with my colleague Dennis Baker) about future directions for a conservative criminal justice policy. The Ford government has taken some promising steps in bail policy; however, this cash bail policy is unfair, costly, and counter-productive.
Troy Riddell is associate professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Guelph. He has interests in judicial politics and criminal justice policy and is a co-author of Canadian Courts: Law, Politics, and Process.
